Gavin, On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Gav... <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jerome Renard [mailto:jerome.ren...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, 11 April 2011 5:09 PM >> To: zeta-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Cc: Gav... >> Subject: Re: [zeta-dev] License Headers >> >> Hi Gavin, >> >> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Gav... <ga...@16degrees.com.au> wrote: >> > Hi All, >> > >> > Currently you have 6133* files [1][2]without an ASL v2.0 license header. >> > This means they are either unlicensed or have the old ez.no license >> > header and/or other GPL/LPGL licenses. >> > >> >> As far as I can see only test files do not have (or have incorrect) license >> headers. > > Sure, that'll account for most of them, test files or not , some of them, like > the source files (mostly .php) that perform the testsshould have a license > header, whereas the majority of files being used as data files, or otherwise > being used to perform the tests, are ok and even necessary in some cases > to not have the license applied. That is fine and not in dispute. What we > therefore need to do is go through them and add any files/directories/patterns > that we can 'exclude' from the RAT reports by making entries in the > .ratignore [3] file in your svn. >
Ok. > I was going to go through the first few mentioned in the RAT report here but I > will instead as a test do the first few using reviewboard, you'll then see > I'm not > suggesting mass adding of licenses. ;) > Phew, I first thought a mass adding of licenses was required ;) >> >> > These all need changing/removing and ASL v2.0 license headers adding. >> > >> > * - 6133 files are tested in 'trunk' only so far, none of your other >> > branches have been checked yet but they will be next. >> > >> > (your website pages also do not pass validator tests but that's also >> > for another time) >> > >> > I am offering to help migrate your files (a chunk at a time) to use >> > the Apache License. >> > >> > Let me know if this offer is appreciated/wanted and I'll get started >> > and provide patches. >> > >> >> It is. I have one question though: >> How non text/plain files are supposed to be handled regarding the license ? >> For example Archive/tests/data/ezpublish.ott is an OpenOffice.org file, does >> it require any license header as well ? If so adding a license for that kind >> of >> document might break a couple of tests. > > No, it is fine to 'exclude' those sorts of files from the RAT reports by > adding them > to the .ratignore file list. > Ok. > The main thing we need to do here is exclude what needs excluding, that then > may leave some that need licenses adding, and/or may leave some that need > the ez.no and/or (L)GPL licenses replacing. > > This then allows Zeta Components to point to the RAT report as part of > applying > to the Incubator for a release to happen, some folks are fairly strict and > you will > get picked up on licensing issues, it is in fact most podlings main stumbling > block > when doing a release so whilst most coders will find this > boring/pointless/etc > it is in fact necessary to fulfil one of the objectives mentioned in your last > board report. (do a release) > >> >> > (as an aside, in my own quest to learn more about various projects Git >> > workflows I'd also like to provide some of these patches via git patch >> > and/or pull requests etc so please let me know how I can do that at >> > any stage and if its welcomed) >> > >> >> Would it be acceptable for you to use the reviewboard instance ? > > Sure, I'll have a go. > > We recently added mail hooks to jira & reviewboard & the mailing lists so I'll > create an issue and link the reviews to it. > Cool, thanks a lot :) -- Jérôme Renard http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard
